Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Am I missing something here, or is Randall really trying to assert that modern TVs aren't that special? I mean, I don't know what resolution cell phone Randall has but if it's not the size of a huge TV (and I suspect it's not) and he doesn't stick it way up near his eye to look at it (and I suspect he doesn't), then the TV is going to look better, no?

This comic kind of feels like a guy who is annoyed that he can't have The Nicest Thing and is trying to justify it by complaining that it's not so special (is that cognitive dissonance? or is it more like a sour grapes thing? or both?). As far as I can tell, HDTVs are awesome (assuming you are playing a video or game or broadcast designed for them) and while perhaps computers can get a similar display, tvs are not computers. That's like saying that your watch has a cool calculator in it and some guys tells you "well woo hoo, except my computer over here has a way better one!" I mean it may be true, but that's not the point. Until it's as easy to hook up a video game console to a laptop as it is to a television, I won't care about the comparison.

update: I can't believe I forgot this! In response to the point from JWC that HDTVs are not just about resolution but about the whole experience, including, for example, sound quality etc, I realized this is the perfect place to embed one of my favorite youtube videos of all time! It is, in fact, the only David Lynch video I don't hate. I could go on and on about why there's clearly a difference between HDTV and phones, but we'd all be much happier if I just played the video.

-----------------As is happening with increasing frequency, I am once more very behind on e-mails and comments on the blog. I feel terrible about it, and will try to catch up eventually but I may fail, especially as each day brings with it more and more mail to read.

Sorry, I don't want to sound like a cuddlefish, but I have to point out you're wrong here; he's not saying the resolution is like several hundred copies of his cell phone screen put together, he's saying it's like his cell phone screen blown up to the size of that TV. 1080p means 1080x1920 - so if your monitor has a similar mode (although it would be a 4:3 rather than 16:9 aspect ratio) - the TV's resolution is just that with each pixel blown up proportionately.

it's a dumb comic, but it is true that computer monitors have had high resolutions for a long time already. and you can hook up a console to a monitor pretty easily. not the monitor integrated in a laptop, but the type of monitor you use with a typical desktop set up.

Another thing that bugs me about this one is that HDTV is waaaay more than just the TV part, it's the whole system, which allows content to be made, processed, distributed AND displayed. Complaining that the whole system is crap because you don't like one of those parts is craziness.

I watch HDTV through my computer monitor and play video games on it. The monitor cost $70 and is easily as large as an HDTV 10 times as expensive. I just had to get specialty cables to connect it. If I wanted to buy a blueray player for a TV, it would cost twice as much as a blueray drive for a computer...

The comic isn't funny, but it isn't incorrect that the technology that people show off in Home Entertainment is completely blown away by a similar investment in your computer system.

This is a "Man eating an apple" unfunny joke, not an "Everyone should perceive me as mighty" unfunny joke. Yes, what is the deal with Home Theater enthusiasts indeed, Randall?

Actually about the alt-text: A guy in a store told me anything faster than 24 frames/sec looks fake because our eyes only process at a speed similar to 24 frames/sec.

It's not that we've associated fast frames with crappy home-cameras. It's that the 24 frames/sec speed is the most realistic simulation of human beings actually watching something happen. Which is what the TVs are going for. And which is why people are see that visual representation as more realistic.

I think it's more that we are used to movies being 24 fps. It has nothing at all to do with home movies and soap operas being recorded at higher framerates, and suggesting that as a causal factor is just a stupid thing to do.

24 fps is preferable because it looks like cinema. It's sort of like how someone might prefer, for instance, an oil painting of a tree to a photograph of that tree. It's a stylistic choice. Cinema is not realistic, and it doesn't really aspire to it--it looks like cinema. The lighting is not realistic, but it looks better than actual lighting does. Cinematography is not a realistic way to represent a scene. The acting is not realistic. The framerate is not realistic.

It does, however, go towards making things look better, look different, look more prepared. We don't want to watch a realistic movie. Realistic is not a quality filmmakers are going for.

I would like to know where you can buy a flat screen LCD monitor that rivals the size of an HDTV that doesn't go for under several hundred dollars, just a quick google search or even searchs on Best Buy and I can't find monitors bigger than 30 inches and those were hanging around $500

That and his My Hobby comics are getting worse and worse

edit: Because Rob brought it up, yeah I wanted to post this in the last place when everyone was getting in a huff about the framerates and I was just going to say something along the lines of "Randal, why do we have to change from 24fps (something that has been the basis of film since its infancy over 100 years ago) to something else because it's more realistic? Do you forget that we watch movies to escape from reality?" Well considering that he's all up with Discovery's "life is pretty great" it's no surprise that he would love to have films look more "realistic"

"A guy in a store told me anything faster than 24 frames/sec looks fake because our eyes only process at a speed similar to 24 frames/sec. "

That guy was wrong. Your eyes go at a variable rate, and it also varies depending on where in your field of view you're looking (your peripheral vision has a much higher "refresh rate" than your focal point. Plus, even if your eyes went at a consistent rate, the Nyquist Rate means you have to display at twice the speed of the receiver to guarantee that the signal is not degraded (this is a general law of all kinds of signals -- in this case the "bandwidth" is the number of images processed per second). Plus, two adjacent cells in your eye can be out-of-phase by 180 degrees (aka they can "take turns" taking the image, effectively doubling your "detect rate" again compared to the "refresh rate"), or four adjacent cells could be out by 90 degrees apiece, etc.

The average person can detect an off-frame up to ~500fps with a fairly large variance from person to person, but most people cannot detect the difference between a 240fps image and a 120fps image that has no off-frames (many people can't even see the difference down to 60Hz, though for others that's barely tolerable). The unconscious detection rate is even faster, which you can tell by flashing a light at 1000fps at a person for a long time: they get uncomfortable but don't know why.

You can't try this at home unless you have a very high quality LCD monitor in a very dark room and a lot of time on your hands, though.

This Rundal Monroe needs to learn about physics and the human eye :(...

if anyone could forward him to the following page, it would be much appreciated:

http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_1.html

also, with respect to the new comic, I still can't tell if the girl is talking to rundal over a walkie talkie?, or if that's a tape recorder, and rundal's just being a creepy stalker following her around... (or both!)

24fps is popular because it's the same speed as film. Many shows are shot on film. All films are. It means you don't need the 3:2 pulldown which can make smooth slow movements look a bit juddery. It's a good speed. It gives a good perception of movement and doesn't use up too much film.

From experience in video game development, 60fps is distinguishable from 30fps, but it's quite subtle. Just a feeling of being more responsive.

Dan, for something that does come to more or less the right conclusions, that page is astoundingly full of fail in various details. I wouldn't recommend it, especially to a geek (such as Randall). Geeks (including, and perhaps projecting from, myself) have an unfortunate tendency to see wrongness, especially in details, and reject the whole thing out of hand.

As for the general notion of the comic... I agree with it, actually, but I'm aware I'm one of very few people who do. This doesn't really baffle me, as I understand the difference -- I haven't owned a TV for 5 years previously (I finally bought one last month, though -- a 21.5" 1920x1280, which now serves primarily as a monitor, and secondarily as a standalone TV.), sticking with computers and TV tuners to cap and watch on real displays. I also rarely have friends at my place, so a small display at arm's length is quite as good as a large display across the room.

FWIW, my favorite display for watching TV/movies is an ancient 21" CRT -- 1920x1440. The old Trinitrons are still hard to beat, and while LED-backlit LCDs and plasmas can just about match them, I see no benefit to buying a second screen and having to move my ass between a comfy desk chair and a couch to go between internet and TV modes, so huge fucking screens with the same or fewer pixels are a complere turn-off to me.

But like I said, I'm not "baffled" -- people are impressed by HDTV because they watch TV with other people, which means they use large viewing distances, which means display size starts to matter more than pixel density. And their new HDTV is bigger and has more pixels than their old SDTV, so they're impressed with HDTV in between being distracted by the 5 other people in the room. Not baffling, just different from me.

A good example of the framerate effect is shown in this video:http://www.mediafire.com/file/2uzidxymqkm/casa.wmv

The shots of the man crawling up the stairs and the cards being dealt in Casino Royale are the most noticeable.

733: Not a bad idea in theory, but the execution was pretty mediocre. For someone whose hobby is taking code-like sayings out of their literal context, it seems odd that you would you respond with plain English when the whole point of codes is to ensure security over unsecure channels. "Alert the agents"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be better (and nerdily self-indulgent, which appears to be the whole point of XKCD) if the response was something equally as cryptic?

"The Eagle has left the nest""Roger that, Starlight. Big Baby is engaging"

@Anon 2:43 - Yes, that would be much better. In fact, I smiled when I read your version, which is something 733 didn't make me do. But this just boils down to Randy being bad at executing a joke because he doesn't know how to write believable text. Either that, or he thinks people will be too stupid to get the joke otherwise.

See, if he said "Big Baby is engaging", Randy thinks people might get confused or lost. But the whole "My Hobby" thing at the bottom clears up all the confusion, right? That's its purpose. It's there to take a seemingly odd dialogue and make it into a joke. So ComicGuy could've responded in similar code (as you suggested), and the comic would've been much better. Unfortunately, Randy went with the blatantly obvious text of "alert the agents". It sounds stupid and fake, and it's only there so someone reading it will know that ComicGuy is pretending to be some undercover operative.

The HDTV comic tried to compare apples and oranges. The fallacy was that the highest resolution immediately implies best entertainment experience. For a TV, which is presumably large and far away from the viewer, the resolution doesn't need to be nearly as high as for a computer monitor, which is close to the viewer.

Of course, the subjective component of this argument is for whether people prefer to watch movies on their iPhone or computer monitor or whether they want to watch it on a 60" plasma screen. I would hope that everyone prefers the latter, but you never know.

HDTVs _are_ impressive because of the incredible technologies used to build such enormous displays with relatively few imperfections. Even if the technology existed to be able to scale the resolution up with the display (e.g. make a 6063x3410 60" TV), the cost would be astronomically high and the gain would effectively be zero because at a reasonable viewing distance, 1920x1080 is very close to the finest grain that people can see.

"The Eagle has left the nest""Roger that, Starlight. Big Baby is engaging""Will you stop that?"

I guess you'd have to show an eagle leaving the nest, and some obviously biological paraphenalia. So: make it clear in the picture that the biologist is being literal; context and prior experience should be enough for the reader to interpret Offscreen Voice Guy's comment as the joke. Simple. Better.

The monitor I'm looking at as I type this I've had since before HDTV was around. It doubles as my TV, and it's hardly small. Randy's point is absolutely correct - HDTV, so what? We've had the technology for a LONG time. All that's happened now is the TV producers have decided it might be a good idea to use it. Also, the difference between 60 fps and 24 fps is distinctly noticable. None of that, however, makes it particularly funny. It's more the humour of idiots being stupid.

On 733: I kinda liked it. If he'd only done something like "Understood Tic, Delta Bravo is a go" as the hobbyist's speech, rather than "Alert the agents", I'd have properly liked it, but it's less a 'oh this is bad' than a 'would have been better if'.

733 alt-text: "In the off-seasons, I hire an animal trainer to help confront secret agents with situations which they are unable to report by radio"

I don't get it. Is he using an animal trainer to make animals perform tricks so that the agent can't then report what the animal is doing (in order to annoy the agent)? If so, how does that work? It's not like an agent is obliged to report everything he sees in his immediate environment is it? If jerk hobbyist makes an eagle fly a nest next to an agent waiting for an eagle (druglord) to fly a nest (leave the hotel), what difference does it make? The agent won't say "the eagle has flown the nest" over the radio until the druglord has in fact left the hotel.

Unless I am dumb and completely misreading the alt-text, which is likely.

I didn't like the "will you stop that?" line. Without it, the comic would've read more ambiguously, like this is the first time he'd tried following her around, or that she hadn't noticed him yet, or was quietly irritated. All of those are funnier scenarios than her merely being pissed to the point of yelling at him. In fact, as it is he should've drawn a few additional panels depicting her going to city hall and filing for a restraining order, and maybe it could be something totally wacky like he has to stay between 500 and 600 metres awayoh gods no what's happening to meeeeeeee

i think the problem is more simple than you guys are making it. When George Lucas(Before he went insane) did all of his work with miniatures, and for that matter to this day when miniatures are used, they shoot at a framerate higher than the intended playback framerate and slow it down. This makes the scene appear larger and more extreme than it is, it's an age old movie trick. so what you are experiencing now is that movies aren't shot at 240Hz or whatever your newfangled TV is playing back, so in that process there is some up converting, and re sampling and ultimately you get the opposite effect, the things on the screen feel small and underwhelming.

Not to go on a rampage here but basically we live in an age when people want to store everything digitally but memory access isn't fast enough. So... while technology supports better video/audio no one cares because they are just going compress it and shove 6 million songs and movies on their iPod. Essentially until the public gets hungry for higher quality over higher quantity, problems like these are going to persist, and your professional movies are going to look like "home video" on your HDTV.

The truly annoying thing is that, regardless of frame rate comparison, the comic is still smug. I believe the analogy you're looking for is 'the fox and the grapes', where the fox scorns the grapes because he can't afford an HDTV.

If he is following an agent who is using codenames like Tiger and Eagle, then when a real life tiger or eagle does something, he can't describe it over the radio, because of the confusion of the codenames. It is the situation I would have preferred to see in the comic. Of course, that is a lot harder to write well and get the concept across, so Randal didn't do it.

HDTV is special not because of its resolution but because television is being broadcast *in* that resolution. Once 1080p and 720p became widely available to watch, more and more televisions were developed to utilize those resolutions effectively.

If one takes a computer monitor and blows it up to 50", its resolution may be much higher, but it won't *necessarily* look as good at 10 feet away and up on the wall or stand as that 50" high def television. There's more that goes into a good looking television than pixel count et al. There's everything from the backlight to coating involved. Further, a monitor at that size isn't likely to have 3 HDMI ports, plus 2 component-in, 2 RCA/S-Video in, *and* a monitor hookup to your computer, plus the tuners, plus possibly enough of a computer to hook up an Ethernet port and watch Netflix without the need of a Roku box. And rigging a computer with comparable specs/inputs to said mythical television to a monitor or projector is likely to be significantly more expensive than said television.

But it's easier to say "oh, hey -- my 17" laptop's got a 1920x1200 monitor built into it. Hah hah! That's way better than getting a 50" television with all that stuff, 'cause the pixel density's better!"

now, a lot of people come on here and project their insecurities onto us. that's perfectly normal. but you're about as bad as it gets. I mean, it's standard for an XKCD fanboy to assume that, because we dislike his precious, precious comic, we're talentless people who long for fame who for some reason have no money and are also incapable of reason. that's just the standard fanboy defense mechanism--someone is attacking my beloved thing! I must accuse them of jealousy!

but machismo? you poor thing. just because you're insecure in your sexuality is no reason to take it out on others. you should talk to someone you trust about it instead of projecting onto strangers on the internet.

the thing here is even if for some reason you were correct and we were lacking in any of these things, it doesn't track to the original claim that this blog is about being unable to have a certain thing and thus simply denigrating said thing as being undesirable.

this goes for the cuddlefish that thinks we "can't have" XKCD too, really. I mean, yes, we get it, you think we're jealous, even though nobody has been able to express what it is we're jealous of in terms that don't just come off as knee-jerk fanboy defenses.

the only thing that even remotely makes sense is "the ability to enjoy XKCD." which sounds good until you apply it to anything else. dislike Twilight and complain about how terrible it is? you must be jealous of your inability to like it! if you're willing to say that the only reason anyone ever complains about something is jealousy, by all means, go ahead.

but something which tracks directly: "I can't afford an HDTV. it's a good thing they are so dumb that nobody would want one anyway" doesn't compare to "I hate XKCD and enjoy making fun of it." sorry to disappoint your sad attempts at a dismissive one-liner!

I found the alt-text worse than the actual comic on 732. Randall is complaining about 24fps because it's apparently "worse" than 60fps. "Meh, plebians who don't know what REAL entertainment is, whine whine whine".

Yet WE CAN'T complain that Randall is still, after all these years, drawing stick figures! "But it's his STYLE!!"

Randall's laziness to draw interesting art = GOODCinematographic style that's been around for over a century = BAD

Jon, that's exactly what I thought when I saw the latest comic. The alt text situation would've made for a much better comic, but it's complicated to get across. I guess something could be said for the fact that he didn't just crap that idea on the page without tuning it and called it a comic like he does usually, but it's still annoying that he took the easy way out.

People are saying that Agents would have to change their code if they were in a situation where the animal they are describing is actually there........................... do you realise how little sense that actually makes?!?! If an agent sees a tiger and says "the tiger has been unleashed" then everyone will flip out thinking India's gone crazy and then they find out he was only commenting on some internet celebrity with an animal trainer with a tiger then he's not going to be an agent for very long. The whole point is that you respond with those codes when the situation they were made for happens, not when the literal meaning of your code happens, unless your enemy is Randall Munroe and then you can simply wait for the next Geo-whatever-the-fuck-it's-called meeting thing where all his fans meet in Bumfuck, Kentucky and he addresses them.

Also, if HDTVs some how shoot up the speed of Standard Definition films.................. how come every film in my house (both vhs and dvd) look exactly the same they did on my old CRT TV that was 13 years old? Come to think of it, they all looked better because we could finally SEE the picture in a non-blurry way (it was an old TV) explain that one to me nerds

what im saying is, rob, having an ego is constantly mocked and ridiculed, but without it, things don't get done. It is a valuable asset to be able to have the confidence to assert your will and not let other people tear you down. it has nothing to do with stereotypes, there are plenty of women who fight for what they believe in and don't just bow down or give up in the face of adversity. without a certain amount of machismo, you just end up a bitter door mat.

except "machismo" doesn't mean "having an ego." it actually means "a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness; an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity." but thanks for playing!

but yeah! I'm pretty happy. I can finally add "some idiot actually tried to argue that the word 'machismo' has nothing to do with masculinity" to my list of accomplishments--it's almost as good as "getting someone to call me a 'misogynist cunt'".

so having an ego is a stereotypically masculine trait - right? virility, courage, strength, etc. are aspects of being masculine as defined by our language, just because we've moved on to the point where men and women don't have to fit in stereotypical roles doesn't mean we can't use those definitions anymore, or that everything is equal. Fine you want to change the word machismo into something else to fit the current politically correct language, thats fine, but the principle remains the same - the attributes formerly associated with manliness and machismo are still desirable and important. if you don't have them, you're probably jealous of people that do.

yes, keep backpedaling! if you do it fast enough you might actually be able to GO BACK IN TIME!

read the definition again, dude.

now read it again.

and again.

once more, because I don't think you got it.

got it now? have you committed it to your little brain yet?

okay! let's break it down. "a strong or exaggerated sense of manliness." and here is what you said: "it has nothing to do with stereotypes."

"an assumptive attitude that virility, courage, strength, and entitlement to dominate are attributes or concomitants of masculinity." and let's again repeat what you said: "it has nothing to do with stereotypes." your words!

so, what you are saying is that encouraging exaggerated senses of masculinity and assumptions that the entitlement to dominate are attributes of masculinity actually has nothing to do with stereotypes. got it!

there is a reason words like "ego" and "self-esteem" and "self-confidence" exist, and are used instead of the word "machismo." it is because "machismo" does not actually describe these things! machismo is and has always been about exaggerated masculinity. not about ego, though those with machismo could usually be described as egotistical. it's quite possible to be arrogant or egotistical without being traditionally masculine at all, much less exaggeratedly so. but yeah, that backpedaling is definitely going to work!

let's move on to another thing you said that is extra funny! "virility, courage, strength, etc. are aspects of being masculine as defined by our language."

see, none of these things are considered masculine because of language! that's actually considered masculine because of culture. but I like how you are trying to encourage sexism as if it's just a part of the language. it's not particularly new or interesting, but it's funny all the same!

"Fine you want to change the word machismo into something else to fit the current politically correct language, thats fine, but the principle remains the same - the attributes formerly associated with manliness and machismo are still desirable and important."

you poor, poor thing. see, I have no interest in being traditionally masculine, much less in having machismo. that's for pathetically insecure people like yourself! the fact that you are still sitting here defining traditional masculinity as desirable, as "important" qualities that anyone who isn't a "gutless pussy" has, is pretty indicative that you're still pretty much stuck in the 18th century when men were manly men and women were girly and weak.

it's also a pretty dated concept. virility? courage? strength? really? I haven't had to defend my cave from any bears recently.

these days the actual important qualities in society are actually the opposite of traditionally masculine! they are generally considered unmanly. they're qualities like empathy and intellect and other related qualities--the ability to think and reason, the ability to understand other humans and interact with them without coming off like the douches that dudes who think "machismo" is a desirable quality are, to demonstrate, not the comical overconfidence that is your idiotic peacocking but actual self-awareness--these are qualities that have never been traditionally masculine, and, traditions being what they are, likely never will be. especially since the idea of traditional masculinity is pretty fucking dated.

also I am pretty sure you don't know what eunuch means, but it's comforting to know that you're insecure enough with your sexual identity that your only insults come from insulting how masculine other people are. what do you rely on when you're arguing with women?

Cuddlefish number 803: What the hell are you talking about? Who said having an ego is a stereotypical masculine trait? YOU DID! Or another anonymous did, which for me is the same! Get a name or lump with the other cuddlefish, it's simple like this! Anyway: that's what "machismo means, you stupid illiterate cephalopod! And, seriously, what a horrible word to be used in English...

Now, what was I going to comment about... oh, yes: Jon, seriously, why the hell would the agent report those things? He's not supposed to report animals doing things around him, he's supposed to report the progress of his mission! "OMG, an animal did something I can't report! Gee, what should I do? Oh, yes, of course: NOT REPORT, because that has nothing to do with the mission!"

This comic is so dumb it attracts dumb people HERE! You know what, I'm fucking out.

actually i am a mtf transsexual so that should take care of some of those assumptions for you... and you know, i do admire SOME stereotypically masculine traits and respect them, just as i admire and respect certain feminine traits as well. I just don't associate them necessarily with the gender of the person, but those positive traits, regardless of the traditional gender roles they are associated with, can still hold value.

maybe in your ivory tower things like courage, strength, etc. are meaningless but i live in a world where courage is necessary for survival, where people need to be "ballsy" in order to take big risks to find success or happiness. Do I think it is important to be tough??? of course i do! You can be intelligent and creative but if you don't have the determination to use those traits and the bravery to stick to your guns in the face of adversity, you will never ever ever ever be able to fulfill your potential!

Power is, just like it has always been, the most important force in human civilization. I respect and admire powerful people. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding or a misstatement on my part when I was trying to associate the concept of "machismo" and the concept of having the will power, toughness and personal strength to assert yourself, i even clarified that by saying "if you want to use a different word, that's fine" but you seemed to have missed my point entirely and instead focused on some straw man arguments that have no relevance to what i was saying.

also, my point in the later post was meant to clear that up for you: even though the GENDER stereotypes are breaking down, the attributes of courage and strength are still worthy of appreciation and admiration, so ok great, you don't like them or want them, that is ok, but you write for a blog dedicated to hating a comic on the internet, you don't fight wars, you don't govern countries, you don't stand up for equal rights against a hateful majority, as far as i know you don't do anything that requires courage or strength, so stay cynical and smarmy - but someday you may run into a problem that can't be overcome with sarcasm and snide remarks, and i bet when that day comes you'll need a REAL MAN to take care of business for you. ha. actually your wife will wear the pants in the family so you'll be ok, she'll take care of it for you.

and to aejae i wasn't defending the comic, i actually hate xkcd so calling me a cuddlefish is silly :)

anon 10:22 made my erection grow to a length of fourteen (14) inches with eir manliness.

(note the use of a spivak gender-neutral pronoun! it is perhaps the most modern, un-hateful pronoun there is. as we know, the way language works contributes to the ways stereotypes and prejudice work (cf. rob, sapir, whorf, worf, data) and by bravely pushing against the boundaries of language i ballsily redefine what it means to be a speaker.)

and to mole, who said "Cuddlefish number 803: What the hell are you talking about? Who said having an ego is a stereotypical masculine trait? YOU DID! Or another anonymous did, which for me is the same! Get a name or lump with the other cuddlefish, it's simple like this! Anyway: that's what "machismo means, you stupid illiterate cephalopod! And, seriously, what a horrible word to be used in English..."

being egotistical or arrogant isn't considered a traditionally masculine trait? really? really really? because about a million psychology books about gender roles will disagree with you... but you know, go ahead and call me illiterate and remain firmly entrenched in the idea you aren't stupid :) i think it's cute!

Methinks Randull is unclear on the concept of HDTV being a content format and delivery standard.

He's likely the typical geek measurebator who anquishes over the specs of his toys instead of actually using them, or even using them well.

Doubling the line count of a display will not make HDTV content look any better. However, reducing the resolution (increasing the dot pitch) of the display will improve the experience if the viewer happens to be sitting increasingly further from it.

"But, but.. I can watch the entire Star Wars movie trilogy on my 'smart phone'. What's so great about HDTV?".

Then go sit in a Starbucks booth and lose yourself in Middle Earth. But please keep the volume down or use headphones. F'ing knob!

I used to think 1080p referred to horizontal resolution and had the same attitude towards HDTV, then I learned that it was 1920 wide and 1080 high. I wonder if Randall is making the same mistake here. If so, FAIL.

step 1.) watch the movie, alone, on his phonestep 2.) write a "comic" about the movie, in which the film's characters make sarcastic comments about the movie itselfstep 3.) upload the comic at 11:53PM tuesday night

JWC's criticism is obviously the most well thought out. The rest of you just clearly don't like it because you don't understand what a pixel is and therefore have no idea what the comic is actually trying to say.

i understand what the comic is trying to say and yes i realize that high resolution devices are not new, but huge tv's that have that resolution are (relatively) new and all of the programming that is available in HD is what makes owning a large HDTV nice and those things have been a (somewhat) recent development.

"I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding or a misstatement on my part when I was trying to associate the concept of "machismo" and the concept of having the will power, toughness and personal strength to assert yourself,

Glad to see that you've admitted that you have no grasp of common English words.

"i even clarified that by saying "if you want to use a different word, that's fine""

NO, you DID NOT say that. If you did, we wouldn't be here.

What you DID say was (at 8:03):

"Fine you want to change the word machismo into something else to fit the current politically correct language, thats fine. it has nothing to do with stereotypes, there are plenty of women who fight for what they believe in and don't just bow down or give up in the face of adversity."

which can be taken as

"Rob, you're trying make it seem that my use of the word "machismo" was reinforcing gender stereotypes. Well, it WASN'T!"

No, no, perish the thought. All you are saying that being assertive, powerful, courageous and strong-willed are traits that should be admired in a person. Since these traits are seen as masculine, you felt that it was valid to use "machismo" to describe this mix of traits.

Thus, using a word that has a stereotype FUCKING BUILT INTO IT is not being stereotypical at all.

Wait. WHAAAAAT?

Someone's talking with BOTH ends of his body here.

Rob was dead-on correct when he said (at 8:02):

I can finally add "some idiot actually tried to argue that the word 'machismo' has nothing to do with masculinity" to my list of accomplishments

because that was EXACTLY what you are trying to do.

When Rob actually addresses your main argument (namely, that being "macho" --to use your fucked-up terminology-- is desirable in everyday life, otherwise you'd just be a "gutless pussy") by saying (at 8:24):

"I have no interest in being traditionally masculine [...] these days the actual important qualities in society are actually the opposite of traditionally masculine [...] qualities like empathy and intellect [...] the ability to think and reason, the ability to understand other humans and interact with them"

You respond with (at 10:30):

"You can be intelligent and creative but if you don't have the determination to use those traits and the bravery to stick to your guns in the face of adversity, you will never ever ever ever be able to fulfill your potential! [...] the attributes of courage and strength are still worthy of appreciation and admiration

So we agree to disagree, right? That sounds reasonab-

"you write for a blog dedicated to hating a comic on the internet [...] as far as i know you don't do anything that requires courage or strength, so stay cynical and smarmy - but someday [...] you'll need a REAL MAN to take care of business for you."

CHRIST-on-a-cross, we're back to this shit again. LET IT GO ALREADY! Agree to disagree! Fuck!

"ha. actually your wife will wear the pants in the family so you'll be ok, she'll take care of it for you.

Aaand, you end off by reinforcing gender stereotypes. That men somehow deserve to be in control of the family, and if they're not, the wife is the dominant figure, and the man is somehow diminished by ceding control.

Because it's all about POWER AND SUBSERVIENCE! COOPERATION AND EMPATHY CAN SUCK IT!

anon 1202... you're misunderstanding my point and totally misinterpreting what i am trying to say. When did I ever say that courage/power were the ONLY important things? I think you need a balance of the attributes typically described as masculine/feminine in order to be a complete person. Yes being reasonable and empathetic is very important to getting along in society but it can only get you so far if you're lacking in other traits. The phrase "nice guys finish last" didn't become a cliche' for nothing... in order to achieve goals you sometimes have to be egotistical and focused on what you're aiming for, you have to have courage and strength to stand up in the face of adversity when times get difficult... that is all I was saying - but hey, if you want to create a fictional version of my stance and then denounce it and rave on about it, go ahead.

anon 1204 -

ok well you're right, being gutsy isn't a requirement, sometimes luck and being in the right place at the right time can allow you to succeed as well. however, for those of us that aren't so lucky, it takes hard work and dedication to get to where we want to go.

also "Some Argumentative Ass with too much time on his hands" ... why are you taking comments i said to Rob so personally? he was very insulting towards me so i reacted in turn. I wasn't taking shots at you...

"Fine you want to change the word machismo into something else to fit the current politically correct language, thats fine, but the principle remains the same - the attributes formerly associated with manliness and machismo are still desirable and important."

you have such tunnel vision it's ridiculous, you took this statement (me saying, fine, lets disassociate the terms masculine and manly from the traits they are associated with, with NO gender connotations, those attributes are still important and desirable and that is what I am trying to say) and then responded with:

Thus, using a word that has a stereotype FUCKING BUILT INTO IT is not being stereotypical at all.

Wait. WHAAAAAT?

Someone's talking with BOTH ends of his body here.

---You called me out for what i already apologized for and tried to rectify! but just ignore the fact that i was trying to clarify my position and keep going on and on and on about a comment i made that i ALREADY APOLOGIZED FOR MISSTATING.

OMG, 733 makes me rage. All of the "my hobby" comics are pretty sucky, but this one is utter crap.

I'm actually a real life field biologist, and I can't think of anything I would say that would lend itself to secret agent shenanigans besides Randall's incredibly contrived example. If I'm in the field alone like Randall's protagonist, then talking is pointless anyway (and tape recorders are a horribly inefficient way to take notes). I work with plants rather than animals, but I'd imagine that vertebrate zoologists would probably want to keep quiet as much as possible to avoid spooking their research subjects.

If I'm in the field with a partner, there's still not a lot of conversation, but some things I actually say:"Is it fertile?""Is there more of it?""I found some""[coworker name], where are you?""[genus] [species]""I'm going to go grab the pole pruners""I already pressed that""How would you describe this smell?""Can you double check the ID on this?""Ooh, that's really cool""Stupid mosquitoes. Time for a cigarette""I'm not sure, but it looks like some kind of [1-2 syllable jargony shorthand for a family name]""Oh fuck. I don't suppose you grabbed the GPS off the roof of the truck at the last stop."

There might be a comic in this somewhere (losing the GPS along the road is kind of funny in retrospect), but secret agenty stuff? Not so much.

Emily: Firstly being a MtF trans doesn't make you incapable of sexism. Secondly, the insults you use (rob will need a REAL MAN to take care of him, this blog is missing machismo, rob will be dominated by his wife) shows pretty strongly that you identify with traditional gender roles. Your backpedalling on the definition of machismo is just that - backpedalling, and your concept of 'male' obviously includes the ideas of dominance and power. Way to put equality of the sexes back a few years, since anyone reading your comments can point to you and say "see, even trans people think that it's natural and normal for guys to have the power in society. So much for all those other LBGT people who argue otherwise!". If you're going to publicly out yourself as a member of a minority, especially if it's in an attempt to make yourself appear less prejudiced or more understanding of an issue, then you'd damn well better make a good showing on their behalf.

Thirdly, just because your insults were directed at rob and only rob doesn't mean that other people can't be bothered by your frankly offensive gender stereotyping. This is an open forum and the idea that only rob has the right to get annoyed by what you wrote is ridiculous.

Fourth, I have nothing against the idea that you need qualities like willpower and determination to succeed in life. My entire problem is that you align those qualities with manliness. It's not ok to do that. By doing it you're perpetuating a stupid cultural meme that women are supposed to be meek and nurturing and the peacemakers and that men are supposed to be strong and fearless and incapable of tenderness or admitting they're wrong.

"I just don't associate them necessarily with the gender of the person"

you clearly do.

"maybe in your ivory tower things like courage, strength, etc. are meaningless but i live in a world where courage is necessary for survival, where people need to be "ballsy" in order to take big risks to find success or happiness."

that's great for you! I live in a world where an excessive or exaggerated display of masculinity is entirely unnecessary.

"Power is, just like it has always been, the most important force in human civilization. I respect and admire powerful people. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding or a misstatement on my part when I was trying to associate the concept of "machismo" and the concept of having the will power, toughness and personal strength to assert yourself, i even clarified that by saying "if you want to use a different word, that's fine" but you seemed to have missed my point entirely and instead focused on some straw man arguments that have no relevance to what i was saying."

I clarified that the word does not mean that. I showed you the definition! I even broke it down for you, and pointed out the bit where you said that the word has nothing to do with stereotypes, when the word's definition is literally "acting up to an exaggerated male stereotype." and yet here you are, still arguing that the word means something it doesn't mean, and continually insisting that people who are not manly are incapable of accomplishing their goals or amounting to something.

"the attributes of courage and strength are still worthy of appreciation and admiration, so ok great, you don't like them or want them, that is ok,"

what is admirable about them? again: no bears outside my cave.

"you don't fight wars,"

you find this admirable?

"you don't govern countries,"

doesn't require either courage or strength; requires the traditionally unmanly traits I mentioned of empathy and intellect, though.

"you don't stand up for equal rights against a hateful majority,"

sure I do. needs neither courage nor strength, I'm afraid.

"as far as i know you don't do anything that requires courage or strength,"

that's because there's nothing worth doing that requires them.

"so stay cynical and smarmy - but someday you may run into a problem that can't be overcome with sarcasm and snide remarks, and i bet when that day comes you'll need a REAL MAN to take care of business for you."

I love love love that you, as an mtf transexual (admittedly the most intolerant and misogynist transperson I've ever met--congratulations) are sitting here saying "well you people who fail to live up to traditional masculine stereotypes need REAL MEN to solve their problems, because only macho manly men can take care of macho manly problems because everyone who isn't a manly man is a snivelling coward and a gutless pussy." here's a tip: just because you're LGBT doesn't mean you have anything meaningful to add to a conversation about gender and sexuality, anymore than being part of a racial minority means you're an expert on race.

"ha. actually your wife will wear the pants in the family so you'll be ok, she'll take care of it for you."

"because about a million psychology books about gender roles will disagree with you..."

all right, find me three psychology textbooks that say that arrogance is considered masculine. I'll wait.

"So uh Rob you do realize you pretty much admitted to having a tiny penis just now right "

actually I admitted to not caring if my dick is the biggest. it's really not something I'm concerned with. but whatever size imagining my penis is makes you happy--I'm not here to judge.

"When did I ever say that courage/power were the ONLY important things? "

when you, presented with the definition of machismo, continued to defend it as being desirable. since machismo is an exaggerated display of masculinity, and no exaggerated display of masculinity would possess unmanly traits like empathy and reasonableness.

also, when you suggested that those who lack traditionally masculine traits need a Real Man to take care of problems for them and continually played up gender stereotypes.

"Yes being reasonable and empathetic is very important to getting along in society but it can only get you so far if you're lacking in other traits."

all I'm seeing from you is a demonstration of why not being reasonable or empathetic is a detriment in society--both of which are traditionally unmanly and thus anyone with machismo (an exaggerated sense of manliness) would lack--people like you!

"The phrase "nice guys finish last" didn't become a cliche' for nothing... "

haha, now you're arguing from the existence of a cliche. hate to break it to you, but it's not actually true.

"in order to achieve goals you sometimes have to be egotistical and focused on what you're aiming for, you have to have courage and strength to stand up in the face of adversity when times get difficult..."

not really, actually!

"that is all I was saying "

ignoring all the parts where you said that "exaggerated displays of manliness are desirable, anyone who does not demonstrate exaggerated displays of manliness are incapable of living up to themselves, are gutless pussies, and that those who lack them will end up marrying someone who "wears the pants," eg "lives up to traditional masculine stereotypes," because they're too much of a gutless pussy to do anything on their own.

you never answered my question, by the way--what do you do when you're talking to women? I'm guessing you call them words like bitch and cunt and slut and generally degrade them for being women, right?

"it takes hard work and dedication to get to where we want to go. "

neither of which are remotely masculine traits. thanks for playing!

"You called me out for what i already apologized for and tried to rectify! but just ignore the fact that i was trying to clarify my position and keep going on and on and on about a comment i made that i ALREADY APOLOGIZED FOR MISSTATING. "

two, you're still defending yourself. you used the word wrong, and you're trying to say you admitted that, but here you are still defending your reinforcement of gender stereotypes as if it's the most obvious and natural thing to do in the world and that blatantly reinforcing gender stereotypes is somehow not doing that. like, if you were to just stop and say "okay, you're right, I misspoke," and just leave it at that, and not defend gender stereotypes as desirable things, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. you're not allowed to complain that people are still attacking a point that you're still defending. that's not how it works.

Anyway emily part of the reason that nobody buys your apology is that the entire thing has been so poorly-communicated that it comes off as a disingenuous "Sorry you're such pussies that I offended you. Faggots."

"because about a million psychology books about gender roles will disagree with you..."

I don't really trust those sorts of books, so I don't think this will work. Mostly because gender identity is an idea that changes a lot from culture to culture, and time to time. And, you know, person to person. If you don't know, you should.

What gives you the idea I'm not stupid? I'm human! It's OBVIOUS I'm stupid! It's just it's better to remain silent and give the impression you're dumb than speak and let people be sure about it. You know, like now! :D

I'll confess I've only skimmed the discussion, but I think it's safe to say that anyone who is challenging this troll/idiot has serious gonads of steel, regardless of gender. (I'd list you all by name, but that would mean doing more than skimming and I'm lazy.)

Uh, unless you've had your gonads removed for some reason, in which case I guess you have kidneys of steel or whatever.

Nice guys tend to finish in the middle of the pack, but at a significant distance behind the people who were successful through their ruthlessness that these successful people generally tend to find it worth mentioning.

Well, women do. I wouldn't expect a boi, such as yourself, to understand or appreciate the benefits of machismo but the world is swinging back towards defining the differences between men and women rather than trying to blend them. In short, fem-men are no longer in favor.

As for the rest of your diatribe, it perfectly illustrates what I first quoted and compared to your motivations here. In short, SOUR GRAPES.

For the illiterate, "sour grapes" is a justification. The fox was unable to reach the heights of the juicy fruit so he sez: "Aw, those grapes can't be very good." Rob/Carl/(all the other pseudonyms employed by him) sez: "I'll never have the money, fame, machismo, or attention that Munroe gets so what he does can't be that good."

We hope these justifications helps you, poor boi. Really, they are all you got.

well and this is my final post here before we move on to other topics but basically i think you're ALL misunderstanding or misinterpreting (PROBABLY because of a failure on my part to clearly communicate my ideas) what exactly it is I was trying to say.

I was attempting to say that words are just words, they are meant to convey a concept. I don't care about traditional roles - AT ALL - I was just defending the value of courage, ego, strength, and power as valid and necessary traits. When I was insulting towards Rob, it was with my tongue firmly in cheek, but I do think that there are people in this world who are naturally the passive type that value relationships and compassion over ruthlessness and "doing what it takes to get what you want" and that's fine - I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE TOO - but people like that (I am one of them!) will often find themselves on the short end of the stick because they have difficulty sticking up for themselves or hurting others in order to get what they want. When I am dealing with someone who is trying to exploit me, I try to use reason and logic to reconcile the issue but occasionally that's not enough and I usually give in... if I had more MACHISMO (hehe) I wouldn't have that problem. For me, I look for a take charge kind of guy because I know his personality will complement (sp? i always forget the correct usage there) my own because he will be strong where I am weak (and vice versa). When I said Rob would need a "real man" to help him in a crisis situation, I was basically saying... if Rob is like me (and he seems to be) then he will need someone who doesn't back down or give in to help him out. When I said his wife will probably be the one that wears the pants in his family, I just meant he will need a strong woman to balance out with his personality. I made a lot of assumptions about Rob, I don't KNOW Rob personally, so I could be way off the mark - but he called me an idiot and it hurt my feelings and so I reacted in kind.

Anyways, if anyone is still salty with me, maybe we can talk about it in depth in another arena and I am sure we can resolve our differences.

"you never answered my question, by the way--what do you do when you're talking to women? I'm guessing you call them words like bitch and cunt and slut and generally degrade them for being women, right?"

I actually don't really argue with people very often and when I do, it rarely gets into personal slurs. You have *really* thin skin for someone who runs a hate blog and throws around judgments and insults as liberally as you do - maybe if you didn't call me an idiot without even attempting to understand what I was trying to say (and I still contend that you prefer to argue and slander people than to try to understand an alternate point of view) then I wouldn't have said mean things to you.

If you can't take it, don't dish it.

Now relax, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I really think you still don't understand my point at all and that is fine and I take personal responsibility for being incapable of wording my message correctly. I apologize. Ok?

and if any of the above people want to say i backpedaled on the definition of machismo, i'll go ahead and say guilty as charged, my original statement was meant in the spirit, if not the literal dictionary definition, of the word in the context it was used and I have since been educated by all of you kind folk that I was using incorrect or insensitive terminology... so, my bad.

ok and yes, i am playing contrarian and devil's advocate here - that is my nature, I stick up for things that don't seem to have a lot of defenders. PLEASE don't think that you understand my perspective or view on life JUST from what you've read here. I am constantly accused of being a feminazi and liberal skag by republicans I argue with. I just think that there's two sides to every fight and both sides think that they are right, and my Modus Operandi is to try to find the truth that exists from both sides (its usually NOT in the middle, but both sides usually have some kind of valid point... except opponents of gay marriage, those people are homophobic jerks)

I have to say that while I don't find the HDTV comic to be in any way funny, I do understand where he's coming from. I have an old - and I do mean old, in excess of ten years - TV. I have had to use a digital upconversion box and a brand-new digital antenna (that, by the way, can't recieve shit). My DVD player is wired through my VCR - which still works and probably gets more use than the DVD player.

When I watch things on one of these new, monstrous TVs, I feel like I'm in a movie theater - i.e. completely uncomfortable. There's too much screen to focus on and too many things happening on it. I don't like HDTVs, and I feel that the people who hype the technology are pretty much imbeciles who can no longer resolve their dick length issues with cars or guns or pointy sticks.

"And why doesn't everyone here pretend to like Twilight? It's genre fiction and insanely popular. Maybe the Slashdot crowd likes XKCD because it is great, and they hate Twilight because it is crap."

"And why doesn't everyone here pretend to like xkcd? It's genre fiction and insanely popular. Maybe the [twilight forums?] crowd likes Twilight because it is great, and they hate xkcd because it is crap."

I have to say that while I don't find the HDTV comic to be in any way funny, I do understand where he's coming from. I have an old - and I do mean old, in excess of ten years - TV. I have had to use a digital upconversion box and a brand-new digital antenna (that, by the way, can't recieve shit). My DVD player is wired through my VCR - which still works and probably gets more use than the DVD player.

When I watch things on one of these new, monstrous TVs, I feel like I'm in a movie theater - i.e. completely uncomfortable. There's too much screen to focus on and too many things happening on it. I don't like HDTVs, and I feel that the people who hype the technology are pretty much imbeciles who can no longer resolve their dick length issues with cars or guns or pointy sticks.

That's not where Randall is coming from at all. Did you just think "HOLY SHIT WE BOTH AREN'T EXCITED ABOUT HDTVs WE MUST THINK THE SAME THING!"

Or maybe you just didn't give a shit that you dislike them for completely different reasons and just said you understand where he's coming from anyway.

"I wouldn't expect a boi, such as yourself, to understand or appreciate the benefits of machismo but the world is swinging back towards defining the differences between men and women rather than trying to blend them."

hahahahaha okay, sure.

"Rob/Carl/(all the other pseudonyms employed by him) sez: "I'll never have the money, fame, machismo, or attention that Munroe gets so what he does can't be that good.""

the idea that someone thinks Randy has machismo is the single most hilarious thing I have ever heard. congratulations.

"I try to use reason and logic to reconcile the issue"

why didn't you try that approach here?

"maybe if you didn't call me an idiot without even attempting to understand what I was trying to say (and I still contend that you prefer to argue and slander people than to try to understand an alternate point of view) then I wouldn't have said mean things to you."

first: if you really think I was personally offended, you're dumber than I thought--and that is an accomplishment, believe me.

second: you actually started with the bigoted slurs well before I called you an idiot, what with the calling anyone who isn't an exaggerated manly man a gutless pussy. I mean, your idea of insults is shared by homophobes, rednecks, and other bigots. I generally take it as a compliment when bigots (such as people who think, let's recall, that anyone without exaggerated manly-manliness are gutless pussies) try to insult me for not fitting into their manly man-molds.

"Now relax, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I really think you still don't understand my point at all and that is fine and I take personal responsibility for being incapable of wording my message correctly. I apologize. Ok?"

you should really be apologizing for making dumb arguments.

"that is my nature, I stick up for things that don't seem to have a lot of defenders."

so on forums where people are arguing about race are you the one that's defending the idea that maybe black people are just genetically stupid?

Rob - I'm done debating. It's just masturbation for you. You are mischaracterizing things I said, picking and choosing comments and quotes out of context and just insulting me and judging me without any concept of who I am, what I believe in, etc.

all I know is you argue dumb things, think that your redneck-style insults are deeply insulting, and claim to be the person who defends bigoted positions because nobody else is defending them by nature.

you know what? STOP IT. I said that being courageous and being able of taking charge is an important asset for people. I specifically stated a dozen times that it doesn't matter what gender the person, I tried in vain to disassociate gender roles from the traits I was talking about... I have apologized for misstating or inaccurately conveying my ideas, but you just won't let up. You keep calling me a bigot and sexist... well you know, screw you. I blame myself for not clearly stating my position but I have since then tried and tried and tried to apologize and fix the position and you keep harping on the same things over and over again. You're seriously like talking to a brick wall, the only reason I think you are insulted by what i said to you is because you BRING THEM UP IN EVERY POST AND REFUSE TO LET IT GO. I don't think saying traits that are traditionally considered masculine are worthwhile and desirable makes me a BIGOT. saying that toughness and courage can be an admirable trait makes me a bigot? because that is all i have been trying to say! but you keep going back to the same dumb points over and over again even though I have already apologized continually and tried to distance myself from the original statement. I even admitted I was wrong in my original statement and you still call me stupid, dumb, call me a bigot, etc. STOP IT, please. PLEASE?

"Do you know there's a guy who has a whole boring ass blog about how xkcd isn't funny? Nobody reads it, because we all think xkcd IS funny."

I LOVE when people insist on speaking for eveyone else. It's so incredibly stupid I wonder why I ever thought xkcd fans were a clever lot.

I also LOVE those people use the "you're just Carl/Rob and a lot of sock puppets" card. It's so incredibly impractical... I mean, picture this:

Carl writes another article. Then he posts an anonymous comment. Then he uses someone else's openID to write another comment. Then he logs in and out of multiple google accounts to start debates. Not to mention some time or another he *pretends* to post a comment without seeing another comment was posted just above. Just for the sake of it.

You: "you're just a gutless pussy" if you do not have exaggerated masculine traits. "you'll need a REAL MAN to take care of business for you" if you do not have exaggerated masculine traits. "you will never ever ever ever be able to fulfill your potential" if you do not have masculine traits. you also implied that in order to govern a country or fight for equal rights you have to be a REAL MAN. and your insults consist of the exact same insults that bigots use.

as they say: if it walks like a bigot and talks like a bigot, it's a bigot.

and the fact that you, Teabagger-style, refuse to own up to the fact that the things you're saying are incredibly bigoted and are instead trying to justify them, makes you look even more bigoted.

I just read through this post and some of the comments and I have to say my faith in humanity has dwindled.(I was searching for a comic and when I saw this I had to look)

Your complaints are so twisted to make you feel right that from an outsiders point of few it just looks pathetic. Clearly you miss the points of many of the comics. I can prove a lot of you wrong on your 'facts'. I'm glad I can look at things in life with a different point of few than most of you.

Have fun being stubborn, angry and for the most part wrong.(Where opinion isn't an option.. I respect your opinion, I just don't respect wrong).

so using your actual words--the things you actually, literally said--is a strawman now? it's a shame that's not how it works! see, you can't just say 'THAT'S A STRAWMAN' and run away. you have to indicate what it is that makes it a strawman. in what way did the sentences which you used, to say that people who are not traditionally masculine are gutless pussies who are not REAL MEN and who therefore have to rely on real men to accomplish anything, and who are incapable of effective governance, of fighting for equal rights, or, indeed, of ever being capable of fulfilling your potential--please explain how your horrible, horrible bigoted words are not, in fact, horribly bigoted. if it's really such a strawman you should have an easy time of it.

please explain how your actual words don't indicate that, not how you didn't intend for it to mean that; only bigots use the 'I didn't mean for it to be bigoted' defense. of course not! bigotry is second-nature to you. I MEAN THEM. SLIP OF THE TONGUE.

---maybe in your ivory tower things like courage, strength, etc. are meaningless but i live in a world where courage is necessary for survival, where people need to be "ballsy" in order to take big risks to find success or happiness. Do I think it is important to be tough??? of course i do! You can be intelligent and creative but if you don't have the determination to use those traits and the bravery to stick to your guns in the face of adversity, you will never ever ever ever be able to fulfill your potential!

Power is, just like it has always been, the most important force in human civilization. I respect and admire powerful people. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding or a misstatement on my part when I was trying to associate the concept of "machismo" and the concept of having the will power, toughness and personal strength to assert yourself, i even clarified that by saying "if you want to use a different word, that's fine" but you seemed to have missed my point entirely.---

I just don't understand what exactly you think i am bigoted about? To be a bigot I need to be prejudice or against someone... so who is that? I have acknowledged that I myself am not exactly a type A personality, that I am more sensitive and relationship driven, so am I bigoted against myself? Just because I have been defending masculinity or the traits traditionally associated with masculinity doesn't mean I dismiss or diminish the virtues of femininity or the traits traditionally associated with women. I think all personality traits have strengths and weaknesses and that people who have certain strengths/weaknesses need people who have strengths and weaknesses that compliment their own because no one is perfect. I said the "Real Man" comment as a flippant joke (while also noting that maybe your "real man" will be a woman who is strong... im such a bigot!).

That's a lazy argument. The typical reader of this blog probably dislikes xkcd, but that does not imply that the reader does not understand.

"Have fun being stubborn, angry and for the most part wrong." I hope one day you develop the wisdom for self reflection and an understanding of irony. I also hope that you don't feel the sting of condescension, but with the way you present yourself, I see no other way to address you.

"Your complaints are so twisted to make you feel right that from an outsiders point of few it just looks pathetic. Clearly you miss the points of many of the comics. I can prove a lot of you wrong on your 'facts'. I'm glad I can look at things in life with a different point of few than most of you."

If you want to prove us wrong, please do so. It's not very polite to show up, say "You're wrong, and I can prove it," and then refuse to show said proof in the form of an actual argument. It would be nice to know that I'm wrong, but until you can back yourself up, I will content myself with thinking that I'm right.

To clarify, you keep referring to physical traits as being necessary. Frankly, that's not a human quality; much of our existence has been striving to eliminate that need, by using machines to augment strength. Doesn't matter how good of a bowman you are, the guy with the gun will win; strength doesn't come into it. If you are trying to say that you're referring to mental "strength" then you're being redundant, since you also mention courage. And frankly, "power" is not and has not always been the most important force in civilization; that makes no sense. You could argue that it's ingenuity, intelligence, or curiosity, but strength and power are no longer necessary components of life; I don't have to fight for my meals, I have to work; to be useful.Also risk-taking is again not a necessary attribute, and is in fact detrimental; taking unnecessary risks is borderline suicidal (Species wise, not as an individual) while calculated risks (not commonly associated with being "balls-y" to borrow your term) are useful but not necessary. Frankly, this does seem like the sort of antiquated viewpoint that I thought had died out after the 19th century.If you could present some of your reasoning or ideas, perhaps I could understand your central point better.

Emily - the "I said that as a joke" is a defense as old as it is useless. The reason Rob is bashing you so hard is that he has translated your logic as "Men have traits that make them more effective in society then women," which makes you come across as rather sexist. (This is probably the most negative way to say what you're saying, but it's also the shortest, and most effective.) I understand that this is not what you INTENDED to say, but what you meant isn't usually as important as the interpretation.

Also, saying something as a joke does not necessarily make it invalid to your overall worldview. Calling someone "gay" as an insult, even when used jokingly, still comes across as a little homophobic, no?

well i think its just a misunderstanding on pretty much all of the points nemo (and i take the blame for not making it clearer) - i don't mean physical traits AT ALL. The president of the united states is a powerful man. I am not saying he's physically powerful, I am saying he is in power, hes in charge. My mother had breast cancer, she was strong to overcome it.

also, by taking risks I don't mean physical risks, I mean the people who say "damn the torpedoes" and go after their dreams even if it is risking the safety and comfort of the familiar. It is is ballsy to quit your job, take your savings, and start your own business. If you fail, you will lose a lot! Coming out of the closet if you're gay takes a lot of courage and it is a big risk, asking someone out on a date is a risk... etc. etc. etc. You have to take risks!

alsworth, the "real man" comment was a joke but i actually still stand behind the comment as it was made in the context it was made - if he lacks courage, he'll need someone who has it to help him if there's a crisis. I am not saying he does lack courage, but if he did, my statement is true. (although maybe he would find courage inside himself if the need arose!)

"I understand that this is not what you INTENDED to say, but what you meant isn't usually as important as the interpretation."

well that's true, that why ive spent about 10 posts trying to clarify what i meant (to no avail)

That would be what I was looking for. From what I can tell, in your first you post you (jokingly) used terminology that made it appear you were showing a viewpoint you did not intend to.Certainly, courage and "strength" in order to succeed are admirable traits. I feel that no one is going to dispute this.The same goes for risk-taking, to an extent. Certain levels of risk (the ones with high-rewards/high-losses) tend to be those most necessary for continual advancement of society as a whole; especially when we continue to use an earlier system not adapted for other changes.Again, I doubt anyone will disagree with that point.Counter-points, rob?

I also LOVE when anons come up here and say "LOL, I can prove lots of things you claim are wrong" and either fail to do so or just don't do it at all.

By the way, I can teleport to anywhere in the world with a blink of my eye and can produce the cure of cancer with a bunch of paper clips and blood of a moth. I just don't feel like doing it. BUT I CAN!

"If you want to prove us wrong, please do so. It's not very polite to show up, say "You're wrong, and I can prove it," and then refuse to show said proof in the form of an actual argument. It would be nice to know that I'm wrong, but until you can back yourself up, I will content myself with thinking that I'm right." Good time for 'Ignorance is bliss'?

Why didn't I explain all of the wrongs? Well for one I'd be just like the author, and secondly there's just too many.

In regards to this post. The comic is clearly pointing out that glorifying the HD Visual portion of a TV is nothing special. Monitors(Which can most DEFINITELY used as a TV display), have had that resolution for quite a while. Phones are getting there, TVs are a bit behind in that regard.(They're making thinner and larger views and slowly upgrading viewing).

Alternatively, the comic's Alt text points out that he thinks it's partially due to the higher quality large TVs are getting to a point where things look fake, because they do and are. When I got my new TV I was kinda saddened by the fact that Lost was now looking like a staged show.(It is of course)

The island comic, well first of all the author of this blog again goes into a short rant of how he doesn't want this comic that he's critisizing to tell him what he should do.(L O L) Moving on... ok not really, we'll continue with this one. My thoughts on this comic when I saw it(Opinion of course).. I kind of immediately thought of Einstein's quote 'Imagination is everything. It is a preview of life's coming attractions.' If you sit there and think you're stranded, you're gonna be stranded.What's wrong with it? Well, ¯\(o.°)/¯ apparently something big enough to make a guy angry and devote a lot of his life to it.

Summary of circuit comic: "lol some of this is funny, some wasn't, but there wasn't a lot to it, I expected so much because it's a web comic that other people enjoy"

What I get out of this blog: Some people get angry over other peoples entertainment. There is literally no merit in every comic being critisized. There is so little content in each post that I actually feel kind of bad for the author.

And now I've wasted about 5 minutes of my life on this sadness. I feel bad, I could have been having fun doing something I enjoy. Instead I got sucked into this pit of anger and whine of someone taking their pitiful stature on life out on a simple web comic.

"what do i need to say to you that will make you stop? just tell me" Maybe try some more insincere "I'm sorry you're not smart enough to understand me" apologies.

ok, I am sincerely sorry that I unintentionally implied that you needed to be masculine in order to be a worthwhile person. I am also sorry I came off as bigoted because I communicated my thoughts poorly. Above all I am sorry I implied that you were a gutless pussy that needed a real man to handle business for you. I don't believe myself to be a bigot but most bigot's probably don't - that said, I believe what I believe and if you want to put a label on me for what i ACTUALLY believe, then I will accept that label, but I think you've misinterpreted or misunderstood what I was trying to say (most likely due to a failure on my part to make it clear) and thus I refute the bigot label while simultaneously accepting that I came off that way in my posts.

Heh, nice analogy, except proving every post wrong requires more effort than proving you can teleport and cure cancer with paperclips/bloodof moth.(If it were possible)

You guys are like 'the man' sticking it to 'the man'. You should really take a step back and read these posts. The lack of real content is astounding. You're all just arguing in comments. It's a community of anger, YEY!

Oh, and I was the anon that posted a few posts above. Just so I'm not so anon anymore. I know you guys like to nitpic. Even though we are indeed all still anonymous.

Anon 1:36, why exactly are you posting here to say this if you understand you are wasting your time? You're arguments simply show that different people enjoy different things. Not exactly an insight there. Why continue to do this? Why care? You prove nothing and defend nothing. I advise a speedy removal of your (virtual)self from this website, or actual points made. Now, to counter:What glorification? Any examples? And no, resolution must also be taken in size to display that. Monitors, iirc, are generally smaller than an HDtv (unless yours breaks 40 inches. I don't know that) so yes, a resolution that high is more impressive than your computer monitor. Sure, I could display 1028 pixels on a 3 inch screen (theoretically, mind you) but it would still look horrible.And no, HDtv does not lead to fake shows appearing *gasp* fake. That conclusion makes no sense. Showing you reality is not a fault.Second, the comic made you think of einstein. Yes, thinking he's stranded will not help him. Knowing there are squid won't help him either. The specific situation presented (rather than the metaphorical viewpoint presented by the character) does not make logical sense, and so is invalid.And the circuit comic was a collection of jokes with poor presentation, as this is a criticism, points like this need to be made in order for the comic to improve on its faults. That is the point of this.

"What I get out of this blog: Some people get angry over other peoples entertainment. There is literally no merit in every comic being critisized. There is so little content in each post that I actually feel kind of bad for the author.

And now I've wasted about 5 minutes of my life on this sadness. I feel bad, I could have been having fun doing something I enjoy. Instead I got sucked into this pit of anger and whine of someone taking their pitiful stature on life out on a simple web comic"

My complaints about xkcd are its low quality writing and its low quality art. The latter could be chalked up to style save for the fact that Munroe's art muddles the execution of every single complex visual gag he has attempted. All of the comics share these flaws, ergo... merit.

Three times a week, Carl wastes thirty seconds of his life on Randy's sadness. Maybe you two could commiserate over that?

"Why didn't I explain all of the wrongs? Well for one I'd be just like the author, and secondly there's just too many."

Which is, incidentally, constructive criticism. You see, pointing out what's wrong is useful for the author to improve, either if he's unaware or just feigning blindness to his flaws.

"And now I've wasted about 5 minutes of my life on this sadness. I feel bad, I could have been having fun doing something I enjoy. Instead I got sucked into this pit of anger and whine of someone taking their pitiful stature on life out on a simple web comic."

And I won't waste 5 of mine with you. That's Rob job. At least you botheres backing up your claims. Good job.

To completely negate all of your HDtv references, I was coming from an angle of "technological feat", impressiveness. Obviously, a pretty big tv that looks better than a pretty big TV is more use for family entertainment and whatnot. However the tech is no where near as impressive.(I feel like i'm repeating myself) Yes, better viewing on a TV shows flaws in its recording and editing. It does make things look fake....

Know squid is there would help him, it's food. Knowing a ship is there would help him, building utensils for food. The plane might have flares if that is not how he arrived. Knowing a (working?) sub is nearby could allow him to try and signal it through some means.

Poor presentation, what? Are you the author of the comic? The presentation is what makes the comic. It's the style of xkcd. Come on. That's not even remotely an argument. For something standard sure. But a web comic............. Really? The point of this page is to improve on xkcd? xkcdsucks.blogspot.com Where people improve xkcd's faults and argue about masculinity. Get real, it's a site that was started because a guy was angry that people liked something he didn't.(Mmm, sounds familiar to a flaw he pointed out about the HDTv comic, some less interested than the other so pointing out flaws? HIYO! GJ ME) And there were a few other people that felt the same way, and it became a community, now the guy just posts pathetic blurbs and whines about each comic.

I'm thinking I should make a blog(or blag, I'm sure you guys love that word) called xkcdxuckssucks.

"And to close, as a coworker and friend just pointed out, the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference." Elie Wiesel is not the end all of psycho linguistics. Just because something sounds interesting does not make it true.

"Poor presentation, what? Are you the author of the comic? The presentation is what makes the comic. It's the style of xkcd. Come on. That's not even remotely an argument. For something standard sure. But a web comic............. Really? The point of this page is to improve on xkcd? xkcdsucks.blogspot.com Where people improve xkcd's faults and argue about masculinity. Get real, it's a site that was started because a guy was angry that people liked something he didn't.(Mmm, sounds familiar to a flaw he pointed out about the HDTv comic, some less interested than the other so pointing out flaws? HIYO! GJ ME) And there were a few other people that felt the same way, and it became a community, now the guy just posts pathetic blurbs and whines about each comic."

It is an argument. We need not accept the style of an artist graciously simply because it is unique. Attacking the style of a work is perfectly legitimate ground for a critic. xkcd is visually unappealing, and compounded with its clumsy writing, it is no small wonder that is arouses the distaste of this community.

And whoever thinks indifference is the opposite of love is a fucking moron. Opposites require the ability to reciprocate--otherwise they aren't opposites. The opposite of a positive number is a negative one, and vice-versa. The polar opposite of someone with extreme left-wing politics is someone with extreme right-wing politics. The opposite of indifference is . . . not love. It's 'caring.' Not in the squishy lovey-dovey sense, but as in the opposite of 'I don't care.' As in, 'I care what you have to say.'

Caring is not, you will note, synonymous with love. Caring implies only that a thing affects you in some way. If you care what I have to say you need not love it. If you care about the results of the UK elections you need not love them.

Generally the story 'the opposite of love is indifference, not hate' is because both love and hate involve caring about something to a certain degree. The person who says this, being a fucking idiot, defines love as 'I care a lot about something,' and then, using an equivocation fallacy, says that 'to hate something is also to care a lot about it, therefore they are not the same thing.'

But love coexists a lot more readily with indifference than with hate. Love need not even imply passion: I can love pizza but still be largely indifferent to whether or not I have pizza tonight, or indeed ever again. But I cannot both love the taste of pizza and hate it. (Here is the part where you say 'I love the taste of pizza but hate the indigestion it causes me.' This is because you are a moron--these are not the same things. I love the taste but hate the indigestion; it is impossible to both love the taste but also to hate it.)

Often cited in support of 'love and hate are not opposites' are the existence of love/hate relationships. In which you love a person a great deal but you also hate them. This, again, is not actually loving the same things about them. People are very complicated. While certain psychological disorders are characterized in part by binary thinking about people--that they are either all good or all bad--this is disordered thinking. I may love someone's sense of humor but hate the fact that they are outrageous liars--these are not loving and hating the same thing but different aspects of a complicated whole.

In reverse order, emayinin: A; xkcdsuckssucks exists already, try googling it. B; Criticism points out flaws so that they may be corrected and the product improved. I enjoy XKCD, but I acknowledge it could be improved. If no one criticizes it, it will stay the same. And yes, the way the individual jokes detracted from them in a way that was not necessary, so they could have been done better. (You might also remember to not assume anything, I could very well be Randall Munroe using an alias. It's possible, despite its low probability. Just pontificating.)C; how would he reach the squid to capture it? For one, it is much larger than him; He would have to incapacitate it after diving more than 10 feet; and would have to do so in under 3 minutes. Surely, such a feat would be unlikely, to say nothing of the ship or plane, which would be totally unreachable. I admit the submarine could be useful, but only if he could successfully attract its attention in the short time it was passing by.D; yes, it may not be a great technological achievement, and it does present only an increase in utility. However, it's a television. That's its purpose, to entertain. Anything that makes it better at that is an improvement. And again, what glorification of the new technology exists? It's a larger TV, not the universal field theory. It doesn't have to be a technological marvel to be impressive or useful.

Obviously I was not talking about love as in two beings loving one another. I was talking about passion for something, or as you sneakily pointed out, caring for something.

Ignorance just made you type 5 paragraphs for nothing.

I signed off with a little latin phrase that's more humorous than anything as a joke and way of being less hostile.(It was a play on opinions eh and kind of in response to Mole signing out in Spanish) Your response was pretty, eh, unoriginal?

Again, I wasn't and never intend to blast opinions such art and such. But I saw no evidence of that.

I understand your opinion is that you like a big glowy screen with colors more than you like a smaller one. However, technologically that doesn't mean it's better(Or more impressive).

"Obviously I was not talking about love as in two beings loving one another."

Neither was I!

"I was talking about passion for something, or as you sneakily pointed out, caring for something."

Me too! We have so much in common! Except I'm not illiterate, and I didn't use the idiot's equivocation, "caring for something" like you, because I'm not an idiot. Again: it is impossible to love and hate the same thing at the same time. The opposite of indifference is not love (because a lack of indifference can take many forms which are not loving), therefore the opposite of love cannot be indifference.

"I understand your opinion is that you like a big glowy screen with colors more than you like a smaller one. However, technologically that doesn't mean it's better(Or more impressive)."

Nobody has said that it's more technologically impressive. Nobody at all! Like, there is literally not a single person in the entire world who has said that! Even Randall didn't imply that! He just said "impressive." He didn't even say "more impressive," just "impressive."

I find HDTV impressive because I can watch it from across the room and it looks significantly better than your monitor does. That is impressive--the same way that a projector is impressive. That's it! It's impressive because you can see lots of detail without having to sit three feet away.

So you are sitting here arguing against something that literally nobody in the entirety of the universe has ever argued or will ever argue! And you're the one who is calling us wrong. I'm impressed!

"Obviously I was not talking about love as in two beings loving one another. I was talking about passion for something, or as you sneakily pointed out, caring for something."So not only are you hijacking a quote by a jackass, you're subverting its original intent? Either way, what's the point? If we concede the point, you prove that we care about xkcd, which does not speak to the quality of the webcomic or the nature of our caring. What is the significance of your point?

"I signed off with a little latin phrase that's more humorous than anything as a joke and way of being less hostile.(It was a play on opinions eh and kind of in response to Mole signing out in Spanish) Your response was pretty, eh, unoriginal?"Really? I am incredulous only because your tone is VERY FUCKING HOSTILE!

Speaking of ignorance wasting time, I cite your attacks on HDTV as a technological achievement and indeed Munroe's very comic on the subject. If there is someone who just doesn't understand what's going on, it's Munroe.

"um if a tv looks better then i'm pretty sure it's a better tv in that way i don't know what the confusion is here" I think this would be a good replacement caption for "It baffles me that people find HDTV impressive". I'll work on it.

My initial hostility was mostly from a few certain posts I read where I couldn't understand how anyone could think like they were thinking. I apologize.

@RobMan, you have it all wrong, it's like you decided to have a completely different conversation with my post.

Here is what I meant:If you don't care for/like/enjoy/have fun with something, then indifference is what is logical. Do you really need to hate it? I'm indifferent to your opinions, though I do not feel the same way, however I am bothered by you being wrong(I use 'you' loosely, as I don't mean anyone specifically at this point). That has been the premise of my entire 'argument'.

Opinions are usually based on complete twisted understanding of the comic(imo). I mean, where did they compare prices for TV and monitors, where did he say anything about quality of picture of anything but the TV? It was simply a comment on people being impressed with the technology(imo) of a HDTV. "WOW ITS 1080P WHAT?!?!?!?!?!)

I think a zionist who has justified the displacement and oppression of the Palestinians while accepting recognition as a human rights leader is a jackass, yes. Yes, Elie Wiesel, yes Nobel Prize, yes jackass.

"My initial hostility was mostly from a few certain posts I read where I couldn't understand how anyone could think like they were thinking. I apologize."

so you admit you're basically a sociopath.

"Man, you have it all wrong, it's like you decided to have a completely different conversation with my post."

I am arguing with your fucking stupid quote. if you take issue with this, you should probably stop using witty quotes to try to prove your arguments.

"If you don't care for/like/enjoy/have fun with something, then indifference is what is logical. Do you really need to hate it? I'm indifferent to your opinions, though I do not feel the same way, however I am bothered by you being wrong(I use 'you' loosely, as I don't mean anyone specifically at this point). That has been the premise of my entire 'argument'."

or in other words, "I am indifferent to your opinions, I just happen to be spending my time arguing against them and say in the same breath that your opinions bother me."

it's not "logical" to be indifferent to something you dislike. it is logical to dislike it! if something pisses me off, ignoring it is not the "logical" response. there is nothing "logical" about it. XKCD is an incredibly irritating thing which pops up everywhere and is also incredibly fun to make fun of.

there are two options here: there is "ignore it and try not to think about it, and be annoyed any time it pops up, which is constantly." let's count "ignoring it" as having a neutral utility (0), and "being annoyed constantly" as having a utility of -5. the net utility here is -5.

alternatively, there is "make fun of it constantly, thus deriving pleasure from a thing we hate. let's say that making fun of it has a utility of 5, balanced out by the fact that XKCD is still highly annoying--this makes its net utility 0, which is still higher than the utility of ignoring it. therefore, it is more "logical" to make fun of XKCD if you hate it.

or put more simply, if something annoys you, it is more logical to find a way to offset that annoyance (like making fun of it) than it is to simply try to ignore the fact that it ignores you, because the latter doesn't stop it from annoying you and does nothing to offset its annoyance.

"Opinions are usually based on complete twisted understanding of the comic(imo). I mean, where did they compare prices for TV and monitors, where did he say anything about quality of picture of anything but the TV? It was simply a comment on people being impressed with the technology(imo) of a HDTV. "WOW ITS 1080P WHAT?!?!?!?!?!) "

again, your lack of understanding here is because you are basically a sociopath, as you admitted. Randy, like you, is too stupid to realize that the reason people like HDTV is it looks better, so he relies on his old fallback: throwing meaningless fact comparisons at it and saying that these facts somehow prove that people are incorrect to like HDTV.

again: literally nobody in the entire history of the universe ever has or ever will argue that the reason you should like HD is because the technology is impressive. they may argue that the technology is better than non-HD TV (true) or that the technology allows it to look better than non-HD TVs (also true). they are not arguing that it is a brilliant technological marvel that everyone should find amazing. they are not drawing comparisons to phones or computer monitors, because TVs are not phones or computer monitors. they are not suggesting that their TV is better than your computer, nor better than your phone. they are suggesting that their TV is a good TV, and they are pleased with it, and its 1080p, which is better than other TVs.

it is only idiotic techno-geeks like yourself who can't understand this--literally everyone else who has ever or will ever exist gets it, but somehow you are too sociopathic to even grasp the concept that sometimes people are not comparing something to the other latest gadgets, they are just saying that their gadget is neat.

I like how instead of actually countering anything, you pretty much just use insults and occasionally an example.(I like the point system, definitely makes me look like a nerd - or wait, sociopath? oh right, that.)

Something like Apple or Microsoft or brands I could understand someone hating, those come up frequently everywhere, but a webcomic? The only places you'd see that is on a search for it, a tech site/blog occasionally, or xkcd.com

Man, you misread everything, I have to like break it down, you say I'm wrong for having quotes and such. But it seems like you're the one having to be educated on a low level. I mean. When I said the quote about love/indifference, how did you even fathom that I meant something about love. Seriously, you typed 5 paragraphs of uselessness. My brain can't comprehend what you are even arguing now. You're assuming i'm some sort of sociopath because I was slightly hostile toned? Techno-geek, what is that?

There are people in the world questioning HDTV, expected to be impressed, are/aren't impressed with it.(Satisfied with it?) I like how your first line there is no one should be impressed with it because the technology. When that's not what I said at all. I'm pointing out(Sure Randall is as well) that people get so excited over like 1080p and that good stuff. I never even said I agree with that as a subject for the comic. I just laughed at the comments really.

"I like how instead of actually countering anything, you pretty much just use insults and occasionally an example.(I like the point system, definitely makes me look like a nerd - or wait, sociopath? oh right, that.)"

it's more fun that way.

"Something like Apple or Microsoft or brands I could understand someone hating, those come up frequently everywhere, but a webcomic? The only places you'd see that is on a search for it, a tech site/blog occasionally, or xkcd.com"

it pops up everywhere. I've seen it on nearly every blog that I follow (or used to follow), many of them frequently, any time it makes something that vaguely appeals to one of the authors of the blog. even news blogs, politics blogs, etc. and, before I spread the good news, friends were constantly mentioning it or sharing it on Google Reader or posting it on Facebook. I've written about this before.

"My brain can't comprehend what you are even arguing now. You're assuming i'm some sort of sociopath because I was slightly hostile toned?"

no, I'm assuming you're a sociopath because you are incapable of empathy, or "understanding what other humans are thinking/feeling." this is indicated in the facts that you are repeatedly saying that your (sociopathic) brain can't even comprehend what other people are saying. those are the marks of a sociopath. being hostile is just one of the ways your sociopathy manifests.

Anon 4:13:He isn't saying you're wrong for having quotes. He's saying the quotes themselves make no sense, and don't help your argument, so they're irrelevant (you actually admitted it when you said it wasn't your point). If you don't want to argue about love/hate, then don't bring up a quote about love not being the opposite of hate. This is logical.If something annoys you, but you can't avoid it, you derive pleasure from deriding it; this is logical.Logic makes sense. You bringing up things and then claiming they weren't important? If it was intentional, it makes no sense. If not (this is more likely) then you are simply abandoning your point after it is disproven; a sign of an inexperienced debater (or argumenter or whatever term you prefer)

I think emayinin was coming from the angle that this site appears to be fixated on bashing xkcd. You can claim that you are doing it so that Randall "fixes" his mistakes all you want. Its obvious that emayinin was using the love as a synonym for caring... and in that sense, the opposite of love is in fact indifference. Calling him a sociopath because he is expressing his views? That a little bit ridiculous... in fact... that last time I saw something that ridiculous was when Tea Partiers were portraying Obama as Hitler... In fact... you know who else likes to derive joy from hating on things? Yep, the Tea Party... I would be willing to wager that both Rob, Nemo and the majority of this site's patronage are avid moronic tea baggers.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.